Impacted Persons List Filter by Category China Initiative NIH Other Sort by Alphabetical by first name Alphabetical by last name Anming Hu 胡安明 Read more Baimadajie Angwang 昂旺 Read more Charles Lieber Read more Chen Song 宋琛 Read more Davis Lu Read more Franklin Tao 陶丰 Read more Gang Chen 陈刚 Read more Gee-Kung Chang 張繼昆 Read more Haizhou Hu Read more James Patrick Lewis Read more Jane Ying Wu 吴瑛 Read more Juan Tang 唐娟 Read more Kaikai Zhao 赵凯凯 Read more Kevin Wang Read more Lei Guan 关磊 Read more Lin Yang Read more Meyya Meyyappan Read more Mingqing Xiao Read more Qing Wang 王擎 Read more Simon Saw-Teong Ang 洪思忠 Read more Song Guo Zheng Read more Turab Lookman 特拉伯·鲁克曼 Read more Van Andel Research Read more Wuyuan Lu 陆五元 Read more Xiao-jiang Li 李晓江 Read more Xiaofeng Wang 王晓峰 Read more Xiaoming Zhang Read more Xiaoxing Xi 郗小星 Read more Xifeng Wu 吴息凤 Read more Xin Wang 王欣 Read more

Simon Saw-Teong Ang 洪思忠 Docket ID: 5:20-cr-50029 District Court, W.D. Arkansas Date filed: July 28, 2020 Date ended: June 28, 2022 On January 21, 2022, Professor Simon Saw-Teong Ang and the U.S. government filed a plea agreement in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. Under the agreement, Professor Ang pleaded guilty to one count of making a false statement to a federal agent (18 U.S.C. § 1001). In return, the government agreed to dismiss the remaining 58 counts upon the Court’s approval. Previously, on July 29, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that Professor Ang, then 63, of Fayetteville, Arkansas, had been indicted by a federal grand jury. A superseding indictment filed on July 28, 2021, charged him with 55 counts of wire fraud, two counts of making false statements, and two counts of false statements related to passport applications. His prosecution was brought under the DOJ’s “China Initiative,” launched in November 2018 to counter alleged economic espionage and trade secret theft linked to China. However, none of the charges against Professor Ang involved espionage or theft of trade secrets. Professor Ang had served as a professor and Director of the High Density Electronics Center (HiDEC) at the University of Arkansas since 1988. He was terminated by the university less than two months after his arrest in 2020. A jury trial was scheduled for February 7, 2022, but was rendered moot by the plea deal. In June 2022, Professor Ang was sentenced to one year and one day in federal prison. References and Links CourtListener: United States v. Ang (5:20-cr-50029) 2022/06/17 Arkansas Democrat Gazett: Ex-UA professor sentenced to year in prison for lying about Chinese patents 2022/01/22 The Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette: Former UA professor pleads guilty to making false statement after scrutiny on China ties 2022/01/21 Science: U.S. accepts plea by Arkansas scientist charged in controversial China Initiative 2022/01/21 AP News: Arkansas prof pleads guilty to lying about China patents 2022/01/21 Case 5:20-cr-50029 Document 71: Plea Agreement 2021/08/03 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette: Ex-UA professor pleads innocent in fraud case 2020/07/29 DOJ: University of Arkansas Professor Indicted for Wire Fraud and Passport Fraud 2021/07/28 Case 5:20-cr-50029 Document 34: Superceding Indictment 2020/05/13 UPI: U.S. charges Arkansas researcher over NASA funds, ties to China 2020/05/12 CNN: FBI arrests researcher for NASA who allegedly failed to report ties to China Previous Item Next Item

Baimadajie Angwang 昂旺 Docket ID: 1:20-cr-00442 District Court, E.D. New York Date filed: Oct 13, 2020 Date ended: January 19, 2023 Table of Contents Overview Personal Background Federal Charges Dropped NYPD Hearing and Termination Photo Album & Links and References Overview On September 21, 2020, Baimadajie Angwang, a New York Police Department (NYPD) officer, was arrested and charged with allegations of acting as an illegal agent of the People's Republic of China, wire fraud, making false statements, and obstructing an official proceeding. He faced up to 55 years in prison, and was considered a flight risk by the NYPD. His case was identified as part of the China Initiative. The government case partly relied on intercepted communications between Angwang and a consulate official. There was no allegation that Angwang compromised national security or NYPD operations. When prosecutors filed their case in 2020, they deemed him “the definition of an insider threat.” In court documents, defense attorneys argued the government had a “hyper-suspicious” view of Angwang’s interactions with the Chinese consulate official and had cherry-picked quotes and cut out others from their conversations. Although a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty in the United States, then-NYPD Commissioner Dermot F. Shea asserted that "Baimadajie Angwang violated every oath he took in this country. One to the United States, another to the U.S. Army, and a third to this Police Department." On January 19, 2023, all charges against Angwang were abruptly dropped. U.S. prosecutors said they uncovered new information that warranted the dismissal without further explanation. Contrary to most internal investigations based on court cases that had been dropped, NYPD did not reinstate Angwang and continued its internal investigation against him. On September 26, 2023, the NYPD conducted an administrative trial against Angwang, accusing him of refusing to cooperate with the Bureau of Internal Affairs during their investigation into potential disciplinary actions stemming from the dropped federal spying case. Angwang said he declined to appear before the investigators on the advice of his lawyers, because the NYPD refused to give them department documents ahead of the questioning that would have allowed them to prepare. On January 29, 2024, New York Police Commissioner Edward Caban ordered the immediate firing of Angwang, saying he disobeyed an order to submit to questioning by internal affairs investigators about the spying case against Angwang under the "China Initiative." In firing Angwang, Caban chose a harsher penalty than what was recommended by the NYPD disciplinary judge. References and Links 2024/03/20 AP News: A police officer was accused of spying for China. The charges were dropped, but the NYPD fired him 2023/09/26 AP News: With spying charges behind him, NYPD officer now fighting to be reinstated 2023/02/09 PBS: NYC cop accused of spying wants answers after charges dropped 2023/02/02 CBS News: Exclusive: Baimadajie Angwang, NYPD officer accused of spying for China, wants to set the record straight after charges were dropped 2023/01/31 New York Magazine: The Spy Who Wasn’t Baimadajie Angwang wanted a visa for his daughter. He got charged with being an “insider threat” instead. 2023/01/19 New York Times: U.S. Drops Case Against Police Officer It Had Called an ‘Insider Threat’ 2023/01/17 New York Times: U.S. Asks to Drop Case Accusing N.Y.P.D. Officer of Spying for China 纽约藏裔警官涉谍案：检方要求撤销指控 2023/01/17 美国之音: 美国撤销对被控充当中国政府代理人的前纽约警员的起诉 Back to Table of Contents Personal Background Angwang was born in China. He is of Tibetan ethnicity and a naturalized U.S. citizen. After gaining asylum in the U.S. as a teenager, Angwang became a U.S. Marine and served in Afghanistan before being honorably discharged. A resident of Long Island, Angwang joined NYPD in 2016 and worked at the 111th precinct in Queens as a member of the department's community affairs unit, earning a “Cop of the Month” award at his precinct in September 2018. Angwang was a Staff Sergeant of the Army Reserve at Fort Dix, New Jersey. He was discharged from the Army Reserve on January 21, 2021, due to his arrest. Federal Charges Dropped On September 21, 2020, a handful of FBI agents pointed M4 rifles at Angwang's head and handcuffed him in front of his wife and 2-year-old daughter at his home on Long Island. As one agent handcuffed Angwang, they asked, above the sound of his daughter’s wailing and the low rumbling of his car, “Do you speak English?” Angwang spent six months in solitary confinement at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn before he was granted bail. He was allowed only two individual one-hour meetings with his family and lawyer during the incarceration. After Officer Angwang's lawyer John Carman reviewed classified evidence at the U.S. district court in Brooklyn, all charges against Officer Angwang were abruptly dropped on January 19, 2023. During a brief court appearance, prosecutors said they were dropping charges “in the interest of justice.” U.S. District Judge Eric Komitee tried to prompt prosecutors to share what they could about their change of mind, but they declined to reveal what new information led them to do so, telling the judge that evidence remained classified. Carman accused the government of hiding behind the Classified Information Procedures Act to avoid having to explain why the case was dropped. “The truth is that they are hiding behind CIPA in an effort to give the impression that this was a legitimate prosecution, which it was not,” Carman said in an interview. “Mr. Angwang is a great American who served his country in combat in Afghanistan and our government repaid him by treating him like he was the leader of the Taliban.” NYPD Hearing and Termination Although all the federal charges against Officer Angwang were dismissed in January 2023, NYPD failed to reinstate him. Contrary to most internal investigations based on court cases that had been dropped, NYPD continued its internal investigation against Angwang. In a letter sent to Rep. Judy Chu, Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC), Restore The Fourth provided details of the continuing persecution of Officer Angwang. "We all need this unjust treatment to not become the norm… We seek justice for Officer Angwang, and call attention to the broader abuses committed by U.S. intelligence officials," the letter said. On September 26, 2023, NYPD held an administrative trial against Angwang. On January 29, 2024, New York Police Commissioner Edward Caban ordered the immediate firing of Angwang, saying he disobeyed an order to submit to questioning by internal affairs investigators about the spying case against Angwang under the "China Initiative." Angwang said he declined to appear before the investigators last year on the advice of his lawyers, because the NYPD refused to give them department documents ahead of the questioning that would have allowed them to prepare. In firing Angwang, Caban chose a harsher penalty than what was recommended by an NYPD disciplinary judge who held a hearing on the firing and listened to testimony and arguments from both sides. The administrative judge, Vanessa Facio-Lince, found that Angwang violated department rules by disobeying the order to submit to internal affairs questioning. Facio-Lince said, however, that he should not be terminated, after citing his good record as a police officer and praise by his superiors. Instead, she recommended an alternate manner of Angwang leaving the department that would allow him to negotiate some terms of his departure, including partial retirement benefits. Angwang’s lawyer, Michael Bloch, said even the judge’s proposal was out of line with department disciplinary guidelines. Bloch said the maximum penalty Angwang should have faced was a 20-day suspension. Bloch said there have been many other officers who committed more serious misconduct and were allowed to keep their jobs, despite administrative judges recommending their firing. “It’s extremely disappointing,” Angwang told AP in a phone interview. “I have to continue to fight, not just for me, for anyone who were wrongfully accused in the past who’s getting the wrongful treatment I just got at this moment, or any potential discrimination victims in the future. I will not give up until I find the justice.” Previous Item Next Item

Xiaofeng Wang 王晓峰 Associate Dean for Research James H. Rudy Professor of Computer Science, Engineering and Informatics Director of Center for Security and Privacy in Informatics, Computing, and Engineering Director of Secure Computing Indiana University Table of Contents Overview Continuing Developments Overview Xiaofeng Wang, a prominent cybersecurity professor at Indiana University Bloomington (IUB), was terminated on March 28, 2025—the same day FBI and Department of Homeland Security agents conducted searches at his homes in Bloomington and Carmel, Indiana. The university has not publicly disclosed the reasons for his dismissal. Professor Wang's wife, Nianli Ma—a library systems analyst at the university—was also terminated on March 24, 2025. The American Association of University Professors' Bloomington chapter has criticized the university's handling of Wang's termination, asserting that it violated due process and university policies. The specific reasons behind the federal investigation remain undisclosed, and the search warrants have been sealed. Efforts have been made to unseal these documents to gain clarity on the situation. Professor Wang is reportedly represented by Attorneys Jason Covert and Jackie Bennett Jr. of Taft Law . References and Links 2025/04/10 Indiana Daily Student: Nianli Ma terminated 4 days before FBI searched her and Xiaofeng Wang’s homes 2025/04/03 The Herald-Times: IU professor Xiaofeng Wang investigated for academic misconduct before FBI search 2025/04/02 Indiana Public Media: Lawyers: Fired cybersecurity expert and wife safe and not charged with a crime 2025/04/02 Indiana Daily Student: IU computer science faculty condemn Xiaofeng Wang’s termination in letter 2025/04/02 WIRED: Cybersecurity Professor Faced China-Funding Inquiry Before Disappearing, Sources Say 2025/04/02 South China Morning Post: Exclusive | US cyber expert Wang Xiaofeng ‘is safe’ after FBI raids, source says 2025/04/02 Indiana Daily Student: IU professor and library analyst face no pending criminal charges, lawyers say 2025/04/02 Reuters: Cybersecurity professor targeted by FBI has not been detained, lawyer says 2025/04/01 South China Morning Post: US cyber expert Wang Xiaofeng took Singapore job before FBI raids: university letter 2025/04/01 Indiana Public Media: Fired prof accused of research misconduct, FBI involvement unclear 2025/03/31 CNBC: Indiana U. fired cybersecurity professor XiaoFeng Wang on day FBI searched his homes: Union 2025/03/31 South China Morning Post: China Initiative 2.0? Raids on scientist Wang Xiaofeng revive spectre from first Trump era 2025/03/31 Indiana Daily Student: Faculty organization alleges IU violated policy in terminating Xiaofeng Wang 2025/03/31 Fox-59: IU faculty protests firing of professor in FBI probe 2025/03/31 WTHR: I U professor allegedly fired after FBI raids on homes in Carmel and Bloomington 2025/03/31 WIRED: Cybersecurity Professor Mysteriously Disappears as FBI Raids His Homes 2025/03/30 ARS Technica: FBI raids home of prominent computer scientist who has gone incommunicado 2025/03/30 Indiana Public Media: FBI won’t say why agents searched homes of IU cybersecurity expert 2025/03/29 MSN: Professor Abruptly Fired Amid FBI Raid 2025/03/28 WTHR: FBI seizes boxes of evidence after searching Carmel, Bloomington homes Return to Table of Contents Continuing Developments On April 12, 2025, the Federation of Asian Professor Associations (FAPA) issued a public statement regarding the case of Professor Wang, condemning his termination by IU and raising serious concerns about the erosion of due process, threats to academic freedom, and the ongoing pattern of racial profiling targeting Chinese American scientists. FAPA also sent an open letter to IU President Pamela Whitten. On April 1, 2025, Stanford University cybersecurity scholar Riana Pfefferkorn filed a motion Tuesday to unseal the warrants used to execute searches of IU professor Xiaofeng Wang and Nianli Ma’s homes last week. She filed the motion in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. On April 17, 2025, John E. Childress, the acting U.S. attorney of the Southern District of Indiana argued the search warrants used in the FBI searches of Xiaofeng Wang and Nianli Ma’s homes March 28 should remain sealed in response to the motion to release the warrants. On April 14, 2024, the Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF) hosted a State of Play Town Hall, in which Nianli Ma, wife of Professor Xiaoxeng Wang spoke about her family situation. AASF and a coalition of organizations and individuals wrote a letter to Rahul Shrivastav, Provost of Indiana University (IU) and requested reinstament of Professor Wang. On April 14, 2025, a GoFundMe campaign for Professor Wang was started by his son, Luke Wang, at https://bit.ly/3E70Vfm . Nianli Ma Professor Wang termination reportedly involved an undisclosed research grant from China in 2017-2018. On April 17, 2025, Day of Action for Higher Ed, IU computer science chair Yuzhen Ye said Professor Wang was not even aware of the grant when university officials asked him about it. “So apparently a researcher in China applied for this grant without his knowledge," she said "So (Wang) explained and also he provided a supporting documentation to IU. I truly believe this really could have unfolded in a very different way if IU administration had chosen to trust its own faculty or give them a fair chance to respond,” Professor Ye said. References and Links Southern District of Indiana: In Re: Motion to Uunseal Search Warrants (1:25-mc-00022) 2025/04/18 Herald-Times: Wife, son of cybersecurity professor Xiaofeng Wang make first comments since FBI raid 2025/04/17 Indiana Daily Student: U.S. attorney argues to keep search warrants for Xiaofeng Wang’s home searches sealed 2025/04/17 Indiana Public Media: IU department chair says Wang didn't know about undisclosed Chinese research grant 2025/04/17 Indian Public Media: Protest groups at IU unite for National Day of Action on higher education 2025/04/16 Guardian: The mysterious firing of a Chinese professor has Asian students on edge: ‘Brings chills to our spines’ 2025/04/15 South China Morning Post: ‘It hurts deeply’: Nianli Ma, wife of cyber expert Xiaofeng Wang, speaks up over FBI raids 2025/04/14 WIRED: A Cybersecurity Professor Disappeared Amid an FBI Search. His Family Is ‘Determined to Fight’ 2025/04/12 FAPA: Open Letter to Pamela Whitten, President, Indiana University 2025/04/12 FAPA: Public Statement on the Case of Dr. Xiaofeng Wang 2025/04/02 Indiana Daily Student: Stanford scholar files motion to unseal warrants used to search homes of Xiaofeng Wang 2025/03/31 AAUP IU Bloomington Chapter: Open Letter to Rahul Shrivastav, Provost, Indiana University Return to Table of Contents Previous Item Next Item

Anming Hu 胡安明 Docket ID: 3:20-cr-00021 District Court, E.D. Tennessee Date filed: Feb 25, 2020 Date ended: September 9, 2021 Table of Contents Overview 2021/06/14 First Trial Ends in Mistrial: FBI Revelations 2021/07/30 Outage at DOJ Motion for Retrial 2021/09/09 Acquitted of All Charges 2021/09/13 APA Justice Monthly Meeting 2021/12/18 AASF Webinar Wendy Chandler - Juror of First Trial on “Ridiculous Case” Mary McAlpin - UTK Chapter of AAUP Spoke Out The Role of UTK Nomination of Casey Arrowood Defeated Photo Album & Links and References Overview On February 27, 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the indictment of Professor Anming Hu, an Associate Professor in the Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Biomedical Engineering at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK). Professor Hu was the second China Initiative case involving a U.S. university professor of Asian ancestry. He was charged with three counts each of wire fraud and making false statements, but not espionage. The charges stemmed from his purported failure to disclose affiliations with a Chinese university while receiving funding from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Professor Hu was the first to go to trial. A mistrial was declared on June 16, 2021, after the jury deadlocked. The jury includes 4 women and 8 men - all white. This was an embarrassing outcome for DOJ to fail on the very first trial under the China Initiative. What was even more embarrassing was the overzealous tactics and misconduct of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) revealed during the trial. On the part of UTK administrators, they concealed the federal investigation from Professor Hu, provided his records to the authorities without a warrant or informing him, suspended him without pay, and fired him shortly after. Without any attempt to protect its faculty, UTK was broadly criticized for throwing Professor Hu “under the bus.” Despite the absence of evidence and misconduct, DOJ opted to pursue a retrial on July 30, 2021, prompting outrage by members of Congress, national and local organizations, the Asian American community, and the general public. On September 9, 2021, Judge Thomas Varlan issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order and acquitted Professor Hu of all charges in his indictment. “The government has failed to provide sufficient evidence from which any rational jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant had specific intent to defraud NASA by hiding his affiliation with BJUT [Beijing University of Technology] from UTK," he wrote. Professor Hu was born in China and is a naturalized Canadian citizen. He joined the UTK faculty in 2013. At the time of his arrest, he was a tenured professor. After his arrest, UTK suspended him without pay. His son had to withdraw from UTK due to financial difficulties. UTK terminated Professor Hu’s employment on October 8, 2020, citing the termination was not for cause but for “not eligible to work due to policy or regulations.” On October 14, 2021, UTK offered to reinstate Professor Hu. On February 1, 2022, Professor Hu returned to his laboratory. After a long delay, Professor Hu’s application for U.S. permanent residency was approved in March 2024. Back to Table of Contents 2021/06/14 First Trial Ends in Mistrial: FBI Revelations The jury trial of Professor Hu started on June 7, 2021. On June 16, 2021, a mistrial in Professor Anming Hu’s case was declared after the jury deadlocked. Knox News reporter Jamie Satterfield provided end-to-end coverage of the trial. Although it was not her original assignment, Satterfield was on site to observe witness testimony, read records related to the case, and conducted a thorough, independent investigation. According to the Knox News reports, FBI agent Kujtim Sadiku admitted in court testimonies that federal agents: Falsely accused Professor Hu of being a spy for China, Falsely implicated him as an operative for the Chinese military in meetings with Professor Hu’s superiors, Used false information to put Professor Hu on the federal no-fly list, Spurred U.S. customs agents to seize Professor Hu’s computer and phone and spread word throughout the international research community that Professor Hu was poison, Used false information to justify putting a team of agents to spy on Professor Hu and his son, a freshman at UTK, for nearly two years, Used false information to press Professor Hu to become a spy for the U.S. government. During cross-examination, defense attorney Phil Lomonaco said to Sadiku, “You wanted to find a Chinese spy in Knoxville,” making note of the tactics he used to secure a fraud indictment against Professor Hu. “My job is to find spies, yes,” the FBI agent responded. During the trial, Sadiku admitted to not knowing the last time Professor Hu was in China. “You’ve been carrying around his passport … haven’t you?” Lomonaco asked Sadiku. “You know you’re under oath, right?” “I don’t remember the dates on it. … I wouldn’t rely on that document,” Sadiku responded. Lomonaco asked if Sadiku could return Professor Hu’s passport. During the trial, Sadiku was unable to recall who tipped him off that Professor Hu might be a spy. Sadiku claimed that his investigation had nothing to do with the China Initiative when the Trump administration was pushing federal prosecutors to round up Chinese spies under the China Initiative. He also claimed that his investigation began with an “open source” search for information on Professor Hu, which turned out to be a Google search on the professor. “If you can find it by Google search, how can it be that Professor Hu was hiding it as a secret,” Satterfield raised the rhetorical question after the mistrial. Sadiku admitted to telling university officials that Professor Hu was a Chinese military operative, despite having no evidence to back up that claim. He never followed up with the officials to clarify that his statements were false. Federal prosecutors then shifted their focus away from unsupported spy allegations. Instead, they pursued a case of fraud, citing a law known as the NASA restriction. This law prohibits NASA from funding research involving collaboration with China or Chinese-owned companies. Professor Hu was accused of intentionally omitting his part-time teaching job at the Beijing University of Technology (BJUT) from disclosure forms, allegedly violating the NASA restriction. However, the law does not bar NASA from funding research that involves collaboration with Chinese universities. NASA itself added Chinese universities to its restrictions list and the DOJ under the Trump administration used it as an excuse in 2018 to search American universities for China-born researchers as potential spies. Professor Hu was not the only professor born in China targeted as part of the China Initiative, but his trial is the first legal test of that NASA policy. Assistant U.S. Attorney Casey Arrowood argued that Professor Hu began plotting to violate the NASA restriction in 2013 — two years after it was enacted — by leaving his part-time teaching job at BJUT off his UTK “outside interests” form. However, testimony showed that UTK officials told Professor Hu and all its research personnel the NASA restriction did not apply to its “faculty, staff and students” because they are not “entities of China.” A letter, dubbed the China Assurance and sent to NASA with each UTK grant proposal, repeated the same language. Professor Hu’s affiliation with BJUT was clearly listed in other UTK documents and in dozens of research papers posted on the Internet. Lomonaco also noted it was not Professor Hu who sought a NASA grant. It was NASA who sought Professor Hu’s technology. “They wanted him to work on this project,” Lomonaco said. “(A NASA contractor) sought him out because he was so qualified. (Hu) wasn’t trying to trick NASA.” 2021/07/30 Outrage at DOJ Motion for Retrial On July 30, 2021, the Department of Justice announced that it intends to retry the case against Professor Anming Hu after FBI agents admitted under oath to knowingly building a case on falsified evidence to find a non-existent spy, resulting in a mistrial. In statement issued by Rep. Judy Chu, Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, she said, “Instead of the normal process of beginning with a crime and searching for a suspect, the FBI has, through its China Initiative, started with racially profiled suspects and searched for a crime. Many of the FBI’s cases have been flawed from the start, evident in the number of cases that have been dropped without any explanation, and despite the incredible harm done to those whose lives have been turned upside down by these investigations. The case of Dr. Anming Hu is the most glaring example of how investigations rooted in racial profiling lead to flimsy cases that cannot stand up in court. Worse, in order to justify this investigation, we know that FBI agents have falsified evidence. Yet instead of accepting that Dr. Hu does not in any way present a threat to our national security, the DOJ is disappointingly doubling down, pressing for a retrial to justify their fruitless investigation. We must take national security threats seriously, but the China Initiative does not work, and has threatened a return to prejudice as a cornerstone of policy. Unless the DOJ has new evidence against Dr. Hu, this case must be dropped and the China Initiative halted.” After the government made its announcement, defense attorney Philip Lomonaco filed a renewed motion for judgment of acquittal , which was originally filed on June 11, 2021 . The motion for acquittal was made because "the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction. There is no evidence that Professor Hu willfully intended to deceive NASA... Without the intent to deceive there can be no wire fraud conviction. Without the convictions for wire fraud, the remaining counts would fail as well... In the alternative, Defendant would rely on previous briefings to the Court regarding the lack of intent to harm NASA as being a defense to wire fraud as well." On August 20, 2021, APA Justice and a coalition of nine national and local organizations sent a letter to Judge Thomas A. Varlan urging him to dismiss the case and acquit Professor Hu in the best interest of justice and fairness. The letter provides the Asian American historical perspective on racial profiling, including the government's continuing use of xenophobic labels on Asian Americans such as "Non-traditional Collectors" and "Thousand Grains of Sand," as well as a continuing pattern with the cases of Dr. Wen Ho Lee, Professor Xiaoxing Xi, and Ms. Sherry Chen prior to the China Initiative. The first trial shows that Professor Hu’s case has nothing to do with theft of American trade secrets. It started as an economic espionage investigation based on a false premise and failed with misinformation to implicate Professor Hu as a spy for China and attempt to press him to spy for the U.S. government. Congress made inquiries into the alleged FBI misconduct. It is with this historical perspective and the prevailing facts in his case that we find the intent by the DOJ to retry Professor Hu to be deeply concerning and invidious. Massive amounts of taxpayers’ dollars and federal resources have already been spent without accountability to inflict enormous harm to Professor Hu and his family in the government’s zeal to hunt for a non-existent spy. Overzealous investigations such as Professor Hu’s undermines the U.S. Constitution as the government should have at least a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing before launching an investigation, and race, ethnicity or national origin should not be used to profile people. The co-signers of the letter were: Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC Asian-American Community Service Council Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) Defending Rights & Dissent Greater Nashville Chinese Association (GNCA) New England Chinese American Coalition (NECAC) Ohio Chinese American Association (OCAA) San Francisco Community Alliance for Unity, Safety & Education (SFCause) University of Tennessee Chapter of the American Association of University Professors The following organizations co-signed the letter at a later date: Asian American Unity Coalition (AAUC) Calvin J Li Memorial Foundation Japanese American Citizens League (JACL) OCA – Asian Pacific American Advocates Carl Patton, Professor Emeritus at Colorado State University, and The Committee of Concerned Scientists also sent their letters to Judge Varlan urging the dismissal of Professor Hu's case on August 2 and 4, 2021 respectively. 2021/09/09 Acquitted of All Charges The first trial of Professor Hu revealed the zeal of the misguided China Initiative to criminalize Professor Hu with reckless and deplorable tactics of spreading false information to cast him as a spy for China and press him to become a spy for the U.S. government. When these efforts failed, DOJ brought charges against Professor Hu for intentionally hiding his ties to a Chinese university, which also fell apart upon cross examination during the trial. A former juror said after the first trial, “It was the most ridiculous case.” About the FBI, she added: “If this is who is protecting America, we’ve got problems.” Despite the egregious abuses of authority and lack of evidence, DOJ motioned for a retrial of Professor Hu on July 30, 2021. The blatant disregard of fairness and justice outraged members of Congress, national and local organizations, the Asian American community, and the general public. On September 9, 2021, Judge Thomas Varlan issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order and acquitted Professor Hu of all charges in his indictment. Judge Varlan wrote on page 42 of the 52-page ruling acquitting Hu that " the government has failed to provide sufficient evidence from which any rational jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant had specific intent to defraud NASA by hiding his affiliation with BJUT [Beijing University of Technology] from UTK. " According to two legal experts, the judge's ruling has particular significance and relevance in similar cases against an academic under the China Initiative. On page 38 of the ruling, the judge wrote: The Sixth Circuit’s Frost decision is squarely aligned with Takhalov’s conclusion that the federal wire fraud statute requires the intent to cause a tangible harm to the victim regarding the benefit of the bargain between the parties. Frost’s ultimate conclusion that the lack of tangible harm meant there was insufficient evidence on the element of intent to Case 3:20-cr-00021-TAV-DCP Document 141 Filed 09/09/21 Page 38 of 52 PageID #: 2333 39 defraud, 125 F.3d at 361–62, further confirms that Takhalov’s definition of the term “defraud” in the federal wire fraud statute is correct and applies equally in this Circuit. The two legal experts opined that the judge required a high standard of “a specific intent to defraud” so as to receive some financial benefits. Professor Hu’s alleged hiding of his relationship with BJUT was not to defraud NASA for money. Accordingly, the wire fraud charges should be dropped. This means that this will make DOJ's wire fraud charge against other professors considerably harder. In addition, the judge carefully described how UTK failed to provide clear guidance and training to the professors on the restrictions of the collaboration with Chinese institutions, which explains why Professor Hu did not fully disclose his affiliation with the Chinese university. This problem is common in nearly all universities in the U.S. and can be used as a reason to fight the charges against other professors. 2021/09/13 APA Justice Monthly Meeting Professor Anming Hu, his wife Ivy Yang, and defense attorney Phil Lomonaco spoke at the APA Justice monthly meeting on September 13, 2021, only days after Professor Hu’s acquittal. Phil led off the meeting with the good news about the acquittal of Professor Hu on September 9, 2021. He expressed appreciation for the interest, support, and help from many to Professor Hu and his family through the trying times. There were many twists and turns in the case. As the first academic to go to trial under the China Initiative, it was very important to have a good outcome for Professor Hu’s case, and Phill could not ask for anything better. Judge Thomas Varlan right from the beginning was open. He looked at the pre-trial motions where Phil set off the facts and arguments. The judge was open to waiting to see the evidence at trial - whether what Phil said in his papers really came true through the witnesses’ testimonies. The judge paid attention and was very much on point with everything in his memorandum opinion, granting the rule 29 motion by tracking the trial. Basically, Judge Varlan found there was no preponderance of the evidence to convince a jury that Professor Hu was guilty even given in a light most favorable to the government. The government did not provide sufficient evidence of guilt. The judge found two reasons why Professor Hu was innocent of wire fraud. The first being that there was insufficient evidence to show that he intended to deceive NASA, or fraudulently represent a material fact to NASA, that there was no satisfactory evidence to prove that. The second theory Phil had propounded was that there was no damage or Professor Hu did not intend to injure NASA. Phil found a case law supporting the theory that if NASA is not damaged, or if Professor Hu was not taking property or money from NASA, or intended to take property and money from NASA, he could not be convicted of wire fraud. Phil cited a case out of the 11-th Circuit that held if there is no harm there is no foul, so to speak. It was a district court judge who is sitting on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. So it would have been Judge Varlan’s boss if he disagreed with that theory. That was another blessing that God provided, Phil said. Without the proof that Professor Hu knowingly and intentionally tried to deceive NASA, the last three counts of false statements were also not supported by evidence. If he did not intend to deceive NASA, then he did not intend to make false statements. Under Rule 29, the judge granted an acquittal on all six counts of the indictment. The last email Phil received from the government said that they were still trying to figure out their appeal options, which Phil did not think they had any, but he would see what they would say. They had a few days to absorb what had happened to make a statement officially in court if they were going to. Phil was very happy with Professor Hu for being a trooper all the way through this process. Professor Hu did not waver to prove his innocence. And that is the kind of client Phil likes – those who are innocent although it is the most stressful type of representation. Phil wishes all his clients had two PhDs, which would be a lot more helpful. Ivy Yang, wife of Professor Hu, followed Phil and expressed gratitude on behalf of their family including three children. The broad support they have received gave them comfort and inspiration to fight against injustice with determination and faith. History is made by people who are the true patriots of this country. Ivy thanked Phil as their beloved attorney and a wise and humble man. History was made by Phil, the jury, Jamie Satterfield, Judge Varlan, CAPAC, APA Justice, AAJC, United Chinese Americans, Asian American Scholar Forum, Committee of Concerned Scientists, American Association of University Professors, Tennessee Chinese American Alliance, and many, many more persons and organizations. For everyone who made donations, provided encouragement, and watched the case closely, Ivy thanked them for providing the strength for her family to continue the fight. She said Anming is an ordinary passionate scientist who only wanted to perform his research and to contribute his talents to the academic world. What has happened in the past years has damaged his career and reputation that was built over many years of tremendous unbelievable hard work. Although their lives have been forever changed and they are not sure of what the future holds, they will be forever thankful for the selfless actions of individuals who believed and supported them throughout the entire journey despite the backlash, oppression, and fear of injustice. Professor Hu concluded with his brief comments. It was still too challenging for him to find the proper words and no words would be adequate to express his deep appreciation for what so many have done for him. The scars and the painful memories are still there in his heart. For now, he preferred to remain silent and let Phil speak on the case and Ivy to speak for the family. Mary McAlpin, President, UTK Chapter of the American Association of University (AAUP), also spoke at the meeting. 2021/12/18 AASF Webinar On December 18, 2021, the Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF) hosted a webinar titled “The China Initiative and Professor Anming Hu’s Case.” Margaret K. Lewis, Professor of Law, Seton Hall University School of Law, served as moderator. Featured speakers were: Dr. Anming Hu, Associate Professor, University of Tennessee at Knoxville Mara Hvistendahl, Investigative reporter with The Intercept and the author of the book The Scientist and the Spy: A True Story of China, the FBI, and Industrial Espionage, on a case that foreshadowed the China Initiative Jamie Satterfield, Investigative journalist with more than 33 years of experience, specializing in legal affairs, policing, public corruption, environmental crime and civil rights violations Additional speakers included: Steven Pei, Asian American Scholar Forum Phil Lomonaco, defense attorney Wendy Chandler, former juror of the first trial Mary McAlpin, President, UTK Chapter of the American Association of University Professors Mara Hvistendahl led off with historical context of targeting Chinese Americans dating back to the Second Red Scare and Dr. Qian Xuesen to the recent cases of Sherry Chen and Professor Xiaoxing Xi prior to the launch of the China Initiative. For the first time since his acquittal, Professor Hu talked in detail about his experience and thoughts of his ordeal. Jamie Satterfield, despite not being originally assigned to the case, described her investigative reporting. Her invaluable reports significantly impacted public understanding and perception of Professor Hu’s case in Tennessee and nationwide. Wendy Chandler - Juror of First Trial on “Ridiculous Case” A week after the first trial was declared to be a mistrial, on June 23, 2021, the Intercept published an interview with Wendy Chandler, a juror who served on the hung jury. When Chandler was called to serve on a federal jury in Tennessee, she trusted the prosecutors and the FBI. She was known only as Juror 44 in the case. She knew she had to keep an open mind. But surely there would be some merit to what the FBI had found, she thought. The government wouldn’t waste everyone’s time. “I walked in assuming the government had some reason to be there, assuming that they were coming at it with honesty and integrity,” she told Mara Hvistendahl in the first interview given by a juror in the case. “I assumed the best for them.” Chandler understood the complexity and importance of the case and committed to paying close attention, even adjusting her sleep schedule. But as the trial progressed, she grew increasingly skeptical. After six days of hearing witnesses and arguments, she came to a conclusion. “It was the most ridiculous case,” she said. About the FBI, she added: “If this is who is protecting America, we’ve got problems.” The trial ended in a hung jury. Chandler, one of four women on the all-white jury, was one of the holdouts. She came away believing that the lead FBI agent in the case had pursued the investigation out of ambition rather than an interest in justice. She also believed that when faced with questions from federal agents, the administrators who had advised Hu on his grant applications caved and hastily sacrificed their faculty. “This poor man just got sold down the river by his university and everyone else,” Chandler said. Professor Hu’s case follows a long history of FBI surveillance of ethnic Chinese scientists in the U.S., some of it with disastrous results. In the 1960s, the bureau compiled lists of researchers with ties to China. In the 1980s, agents tailed renowned physicist Chang-Lin Tien, who later became the chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley. In the 1990s, an FBI and Department of Energy investigation into Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist Wen Ho Lee imploded in a series of missteps. “There has been very clear messaging from the Justice Department to the field offices that this is a massive priority and they should take it very seriously,” said Margaret Lewis, a law professor at Seton Hall University. “You combine that with calling it the China Initiative and issues with implicit bias, and you’re creating a recipe for unconscious decision-making to occur in a way that can pull you towards certain people as potential suspects.” In February, civil rights groups, researchers, and others jointly wrote House Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Chair Jamie Raskin to request a hearing on investigations of ethnic Asian scientists. Maryland state Sen. Susan C. Lee, who signed the letter, told The Intercept, “We just want some accountability, because you’re talking about people’s lives.” Prosecutors tried to paint Professor Hu as duplicitous. In closing arguments, assistant U.S. attorney Casey Arrowood asserted, “He intentionally hid his ties to China to further his career. This case, ladies and gentlemen, is just that simple.” Professor Hu’s attorney had a different view. “This case is really embarrassing,” Lomonaco countered. “It makes me want to vomit.” The jury began deliberating that afternoon, June 14. It was clear to Chandler from the outset that the jurors didn’t agree. By the end of the day, after three hours of deliberations, they had not reached a verdict. Driving home that night, she burst into tears. “I was so scared for this man,” she recalled. The trial had left her with the feeling that the government was charging Professor Hu to justify its lengthy investigation. “They spent all this time and money on this big giant nothing burger, and they were not going to leave without a pound of flesh.” The jury resumed deliberations on June 16 and discussed the case for the entire day. At 4:45 p.m., the foreperson reported to the court that they were deadlocked, and the judge declared a mistrial. After she was dismissed from jury duty, Chandler found Professor Hu’s GoFundMe page, which his wife started to cover his legal fees, and donated $20. She believes the government now owes Professor Hu an apology and that the University of Tennessee should offer him his job back. As Chandler put it, “He deserves so much, this man, with what was done to him.” Mary McAlpin - UTK Chapter of AAUP Spoke Out Soon after the acquittal of Professor Hu, Professor Mary McAlpin, President of the UTK Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and Distinguished Professor of the Humanities and Professor of French at UTK, spoke at the APA Justice monthly meeting on September 13, 2021. AAUP is a nonprofit membership association of faculty and other academic professionals. Headquartered in Washington, DC, AAUP members and chapters based at colleges and universities across the country. Founded in 1915, AAUP has helped to shape American higher education by developing the standards and procedures that maintain quality in education and academic freedom in this country's colleges and universities. AAUP defines fundamental professional values and standards for higher education, advance the rights of academics, particularly as those rights pertain to academic freedom and shared governance, and promote the interests of higher education teaching and research. AAUP looks into not only questions of tenured professors but also the protection of non-tenure track faculty and graduate teaching assistants. Mary first heard of Professor Hu’s case from Jamie Satterfield’s report in the local newspaper, Knox News. People started posting many messages and questions in the AAUP listserv – What is going on? What happened? Is AAUP looking into this? What is the administration doing? People were upset and confused. Although the case comes down to simple injustice, trying to figure out what happened through reading was a challenge. Professor McAlpin provided a summary of three primary concerns. First was the FBI investigation and how it seemed to be a travesty of justice, which was also what the judge concluded. Second was UTK’s role in this investigation, which was also covered by Jamie Satterfield. One of her articles went into details about how the UTK administration responded to this case. The university is a giant bureaucratic entity, and it protects itself. When an FBI agent comes calling, the university is not there to help or protect the employee. This has happened several times over the course of Professor McAlpin’s career, but it was never in such an egregious and shocking fashion as in Professor Hu’s case. Third was the government's targeting of international faculty. They are particularly vulnerable to losing their employment at UTK which was what happened with Professor Hu. There are many international faculty members working at UTK. Many of Professor McAlpin’s colleagues in the Department of Modern Foreign Languages and Literatures at UTK are on green cards or H1 visas. The international faculty members were probably following this situation very closely, but not speaking out the way that Mary believed she could as a U.S. citizen born in the U.S. and possessing tenure. Mary also said that she was closer to the end than the beginning of her career. As President of AAUP/UTK, she was also speaking for those who might be afraid to speak up, particularly employees who were not citizens at UTK. When the acquittal of Professor Hu came through, Mary and her colleagues were thrilled to hear the news. AAUP/UTK sent an email to UTK Provost John Zomchick, hoping that Professor Hu would be reinstated with back pay and perhaps for emotional and other damages. That was not what happened. Apparently, the university is expecting Professor Hu to demonstrate proof that he was able to work in the U.S. before they would rehire him. The UTK Faculty Senate was leading on this case and trying to figure out what exactly was going on with the reinstatement and the legal issues involved. While Professor McAlpin could not speak to the legality of what happened, the Provost has said that in every case and every situation surrounding this case, the UTK administration followed both the letter and the spirit of the faculty handbook. Even if the letter was followed, Professor McAlpin was not sure the spirit of the faculty handbook was followed in this case. From what Professor McAlpin could piece together, Professor Hu was indicted by the federal government. At that point the UTK administration put Professor Hu first on paid and then on unpaid suspension. According to the faculty handbook, the UT administration did not have to put Profdssor. Hu on unpaid suspension. For example, he could have been reassigned to another job unrelated to the indictment that was in play. It was a choice made to put Professor Hu on unpaid leave. Then, because Professor Hu was on unpaid leave, he no longer qualified for the H1B visa, with which he was working and at which point they fired Professor Hu not for cause, but because he did not have an H1B visa, which he did not have because they suspended him without pay, which they did not have to do. Mary observed that UTK basically triggered their own ability to fire Professor Hu because they probably did not want to deal with the legal fallout of the indictment. From what Mary understood at that time, Provost Zomchick was saying that UTK would rehire Professor Hu but he had to prove that he was eligible to work in the U.S., which would mean having a visa, which was lost precisely because the UTK administration suspended him. This is a catch-22 Kafka situation. The faculty members at UTK and perhaps the Faculty Senate were not going to stop pushing on this issue. This is a clear travesty of justice, and it had been continued unfortunately at the level of the university even after the acquittal of Professor Hu. The Role of UTK APA Justice constructed a timeline on the chronological events at UTK. [subject to review and confirmation by Professor Hu.] In March 2018, about nine months before the launch of the China Initiative, the FBI opened an economic espionage investigation on Professor Hu. FBI and Department of Energy (DOE) made at least four presentations to UTK officials prior to the indictment of Professor Hu. After a mistrial was declared, Knox News published How the FBI manipulated the University of Tennessee to find a Chinese spy who didn't exist on July 29, 2021, raising a detailed list of questions about the university’s treatment of Professor Hu. "The trial also revealed that UT administrators handed over documents from Hu’s university files without a warrant, concealed the federal investigation from him, misled NASA at the behest of a federal agent, set Hu up for his eventual arrest and fired him as soon as he was in handcuffs... It’s still not clear who at UT authorized meetings in 2018 between Hu’s bosses and federal agents or why. Chancellor Beverly Davenport was fired in July 2018 after a tumultuous tenure of less than 19 months, and System President Joe DiPietro announced his resignation two months later... The agents, testimony has revealed, didn’t have any proof of wrongdoing by Hu when they first walked onto UT’s campus and, therefore, no legal authority to take records from his personnel files," Knox News reported. On August 4, 2021, UTK Provost John Zomchick issued a message to the UTK faculty, responding to UTK Faculty Senate President Lou Gross' questions regarding the faculty rights of Professor Hu. President Gross posted his questions and notes under "Faculty Member Suspension Issue" on his web page at https://bit.ly/3Cr67F1 . Citing that the university administration followed the letter and spirit of the Faculty Handbook at every stage, Provost Zomchick provided a timeline of administrative actions taken regarding Professor Hu’s tenured faculty appointment from suspension on February 25, 2020, to termination on October 8, 2020. There were three versions of the Faculty Handbook online: 2016, 2019, and 2021. The handbook says the Faculty Senate President should be consulted when the administration is considering suspending a tenured faculty member. "That did not really happen," said Dr. Gross. "The then-faculty senate president was simply informed." "I have made it clear, and our current provost has agreed, what consultation means," Dr. Gross told Knox News. "Consultation means that there will be time to actually look at the details of a particular situation and provide meaningful input from the faculty senate president." One day after Professor Hu was acquitted of all charges, on September 10, 2021, UTK Chancellor Dr. Donde Plowman informed Dr. Gross and Dr. Beauvais Lyons, Faculty Representative on the UTK Advisory Board, that if Professor Hu "is able to verify authorization to work in the United States in the next year, the administrative termination will be reversed, and his faculty appointment will be reinstated with expectations in place around disclosures and outside interests." In response , Dr. Gross expressed concern that Dr. Plowman's letter was inconsistent with the UTK Faculty Handbook, which states that "full restitution of salary, academic position and tenure lost during the suspension without pay will be made." Dr. Gross also described an apparent catch-22 situation "because Professor Hu lost his work authorization due to UTK action so it is not clear that he can possibly re-attain work authorization without first having his position and employment here restored." In his separate response, Dr. Lyons urged UTK to take steps to reinstate Professor Hu to his faculty position. "This is not only about doing what is right, but damage control for our institutional reputation," he wrote. On September 13, 2021, Dr. Lyons and the Faculty Senate Faculty Affairs Committee which he chaired sent a memorandum including a set of 10 questions for UTK Provost Dr. John Zomchick to address at an upcoming Faculty Senate meeting. The UTK Senate Faculty held a public meeting on September 20, 2021. UTK faculty were also concerned with the lack of notice that Professor Hu received about the investigation. UTK administrators gave the U.S. Attorney’s Office documents from Professor Hu’s university files without a warrant, and they were not obligated to notify Hu. “In a world of data privacy, this is a great concern to everyone," Dr. Gross said. UTK faculty members were also upset with the lack of public support the university showed Professor Hu. According to the memo from the faculty affairs committee to the provost, the university did not make a statement specifically in support of Chinese and Chinese American communities. On October 14, 2021, Dr. Zomchick offered to reinstate Professor Hu. On February 1, 2022, Professor Hu returned to his laboratory. Nomination of Casey Arrowood Defeated On July 29, 2022, the White House announced the nomination of Casey T. Arrowood to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Arrowood led the prosecution of Professor Hu. “This is ridiculous,” Professor Hu said of the Arrowood nomination In an interview in August 2022. “This is the worst presidential nomination ever. I am shocked at this news.” Professor Hu said President Joe Biden should rescind the nomination and, if not, the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary should reject Arrowood as a candidate for the post. “My case was a case of wrongful prosecution, and I believe (if Arrowood is confirmed) similar things will happen again and will damage long term the U.S. (government’s) reputation,” Professor Hu said. “If you do something wrong, you should have consequences. Instead, (Arrowood) is getting rewarded. It is very unfair. I do not think this is a reasonable nomination.” After the story was published, a slew of advocacy groups, including APA Justice, Asian American Scholar Forum, Tennessee Chinese American Alliance, and United Chinese Americans, teamed up with Professor Hu to defeat Arrowood’s nomination. “The nomination of Mr. Arrowood is an affront to the Asian American, immigrant and scientific communities,” the groups stated in a letter-writing campaign notice . “It opens a new wound when we still need to heal from the targeting and fallout before and during the ‘China Initiative.’” “Mr. Arrowood’s wrongful prosecution of Professor Hu betrayed the public trust and confidence we all place in our judicial system,” the letter stated. Mr. Arrowood demonstrated his poor judgment, wasted valuable taxpayers’ dollars, failed to uphold justice and fairness, and eroded public trust. “His unjust prosecution of Professor Hu, not once but twice, is deplorable and an embarrassment to our nation,” the letter continued. “In summary, Mr. Arrowood’s track record does not meet the high requirements and expectations for a U.S. Attorney. We strongly support Professor Hu’s request for the withdrawal of the nomination of Mr. Casey Arrowood to be the next U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee.” The Senate Judiciary Committee did not vote on the Arrowood nomination when the Senate session ended in January 2023. The White House did not renominate Arrowood. Continuing Education and Advocacy Previous Item Next Item

Charles Lieber Docket ID: 1:20-cr-10111 District Court, D. Massachusetts Date filed: June 9, 2020 Date ended: May 8, 2023 Charles Lieber, former chair of Harvard's Chemistry and Chemical Biology Department, was prosecuted under the U.S. Department of Justice’s China Initiative. Arrested in January 2020, he faced six felony charges, including Making false statements to federal authorities Failing to report income from China Failing to disclose a foreign bank account The case centered on Professor Lieber's undisclosed ties to China’s Thousand Talents Program and Wuhan University of Technology (WUT). Prosecutors alleged that Lieber received significant compensation (including a $50,000 monthly salary and over $1.5 million in research funding) from WUT, which he failed to report to U.S. agencies while receiving U.S. grant funding. In December 2021, a federal jury convicted Professor Lieber on all six felony charges. In April 2023, Professor Lieber was sentenced to time served, 2 years of supervised release, $50,000 fine, and $33,600 restitution. Professor Lieber’s case became a high-profile example of the program’s controversial targeting of academics with ties to China, despite no charges of espionage. In May 2025, Professor Lieber accepted a new academic position in China. He joined the Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School (SIGS) as a full-time chair professor and is also serving as an Investigator at the newly established Shenzhen Medical Academy of Research and Translation (SMART), led by biologist Nieng Yan. References and Links CourtListener: United States v. Lieber (1:20-cr-10111) Wikipedia: Charles M. Lieber 2025/05/02 Inside Higher Ed: US academic convicted over China ties joins Tsinghua University 2025/05/02 Chemistry World: Harvard’s former chemistry chair takes new position at Chinese university 2025/05/01 South China Morning Post: Former Harvard professor convicted over China ties joins Tsinghua University 2024/10/30 The Harvard Crimson: After Conviction for Lying About China Ties, Ex-Harvard Chemist Gets Approval to Visit Beijing 2023/04/26 New York Times: Ex-Harvard Professor Sentenced in China Ties Case 2021/12/28 ScienceInsider: What the Charles Lieber verdict says about U.S. China Initiative Previous Item Next Item

Newsletter - #331 5/5 Meeting; Student Visas Reversal; Higher Ed United; Litigations; Heritage Month; + #331 5/5 Meeting; Student Visas Reversal; Higher Ed United; Litigations; Heritage Month; + In This Issue #331 • 2025/05/05 APA Justice Monthly Meeting • International Student Visa Revocations and New ICE Policy • Higher Education Against Political Interference/Government Overreach • Latest on Litigations Against Trump's Executive Actions • May is Asian Pacific American Heritage Month • News and Activities for the Communities 2025/05/05 APA Justice Monthly Meeting The next APA Justice monthly meeting will be held via Zoom on Monday, May 5, 2025, starting at 1:55 pm ET. In addition to updates by Judith Teruya, Executive Director, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC), Joanna YangQing Derman, Program Director, Advancing Justice | AAJC, and Gisela Perez Kusakawa, Executive Director, Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF), confirmed speakers are: • William Tong 湯偉麟, Attorney General, State of Connecticut • Robert L. Santos, Former Director, U.S. Census Bureau; Former President, American Statistical Association • Haifan Lin 林海帆, President, Federation of Asian Professor Associations (FAPA); Professor, Yale University • Gee-Kung Chang 張繼昆, Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology; and his attorney Robert Fisher The virtual monthly meeting is by invitation only. It is closed to the press. If you wish to join, either one time or for future meetings, please contact one of the co-organizers of APA Justice - Steven Pei 白先慎, Vincent Wang 王文奎, and Jeremy Wu 胡善庆 - or send a message to contact@apajustice.org. International Student Visa Revocations and New ICE Policy On April 25, 2025, Politico reported that more than 100 lawsuits and dozens of restraining orders from federal judges challenged the Trump administration’s mass termination of student visa records. After 20 days of consistent legal defeats, the administration capitulated and reversed its decision. Notable lawsuits include • Chen v. Noem (3:25-cv-03292), filed April 11 in the Northern District of California by the Chinese American Legal Defense Alliance (华美维权同盟 CALDA) • Jane Doe 1 v. Bondi (1:25-cv-01998), filed April 11 in the Northern District of Georgia by CAIR-Georgia, Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Atlanta, and American Civil Liberties Union-Georgia. Inside Higher Ed reported that over 280 colleges and universities have identified at least 1,879 international students and recent graduates had their visa revoked and their records terminated in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS)—actions that carry significant immigration and employment consequences. On April 29, Politico reported that the visa revocations were part of the "Student Criminal Alien Initiative," which involved running 1.3 million student names through a federal criminal database run by the FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC). Approximately 6,400 matches were found, many of which were minor infractions or dismissed charges. Despite this, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) used the data to terminate student records in the SEVIS tracking system. In parallel, the State Department revoked visas for roughly 3,000 individuals based on similar data, separate from the SEVIS terminations. Hundreds of the terminations, an ICE official who helped oversee the effort said, came less than 24 hours after an April 1 email exchange between his office and the State Department, with little sign of review of individual cases to ensure the decisions were accurate. The lack of due process became especially clear during an April 29 hearing before U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, where ICE officials admitted that hundreds of terminations were made within 24 hours of receiving raw data—with little or no individual case review. “When the courts say due process is important, we’re not unhinged, we’re not radicals,” Judge Reyes said during an hourlong hearing. “I’m not on a lark questioning why students who have been here legally, who paid to be in this country by paying their universities … they’re cut off with less than 24 hours of consideration and no notice whatsoever." Akshar Patel brought the suit that led to the April 29 hearing. He is an international student from India who pursued undergraduate studies in computer science at the University of Texas at Arlington. He graduated prior to 2025 and has since been working in the computer science field in North Texas. His legal status in the U.S. was abruptly terminated after his name appeared in the ICE sweep of the NCIC database. He had faced a reckless driving charge in 2018 but it was ultimately dismissed. When colleges discovered the students no longer had legal status, it prompted chaos and confusion. In the past, legal statuses typically were updated after colleges told the government the students were no longer studying at the school. In some cases this spring, colleges told students to stop working or taking classes immediately and warned them they could be deported after the ICE sweep. According to AP News, NBC News, and multiple media reports on April 29, an internal memo to all Student and Exchange Visitor Program personnel, which falls under ICE, shows an expanded list of criteria for ICE to terminate foreign-born students’ legal status in the U.S., including a “U.S. Department of State Visa Revocation (Effective Immediately).” It was filed in court by the Justice Department on April 28 and dated April 26. This new ICE policy could foreshadow another new round of deportation efforts. Brad Banias, an immigration attorney who represents Patel, said the new guidelines vastly expand ICE’s authority beyond previous policy, which did not count visa revocation as grounds for losing legal status. In the past, if a student had their visa revoked, they could stay in the U.S. to finish their studies — they simply would not be able to reenter if they left the country. “This just gave them carte blanche to have the State Department revoke a visa and then deport those students even if they’ve done nothing wrong,” Banias said. Follow the continuing development at https://bit.ly/3Yd6gIH. Higher Education Against Political Interference/Government Overreach On April 22, 2025, the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AACU) published a statement denouncing the Trump administration’s “unprecedented government overreach and political interference” with higher education. According to the Guardian, the joint condemnation followed a convening of more than 100 university leaders called by the AACU and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences to “come together to speak out at this moment of enormity”, said Lynn Pasquerella, the president of the AACU. Pasquerella said that there was “widespread agreement” across a variety of academic institutions about the need to take a collective stand. In the powerful unified statement, leaders of America’s colleges, universities, and scholarly societies voiced strong opposition to “unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education.” While affirming their openness to “constructive reform” and “legitimate government oversight,” the signatories declared: “We must oppose undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses.” The statement emphasized the unique role of higher education in sustaining democracy and fostering innovation, asserting that “American institutions of higher learning have in common the essential freedom to determine, on academic grounds, whom to admit and what is taught, how, and by whom.” It warned that undermining these freedoms would come at a steep cost: “The price of abridging the defining freedoms of American higher education will be paid by our students and our society.” The signatories from large state schools, small liberal arts colleges and Ivy League institutions declared: “We must oppose undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses” and concluded with a call for “constructive engagement that improves our institutions and serves our republic.” The number of signatories rose from about 180 on the day the statement was issued to over 594 as of 6:00 pm ET on May 1, 2025. AACU continues to accept signatures from current leaders of colleges, universities, and scholarly societies. Separately on April 22, 2025, a group of at least 122 retired university and college presidents and chancellors issued a powerful "Pledge to Our Democracy" warning that the United States is facing an unprecedented constitutional and political crisis. They condemn the current administration for ignoring court rulings, attacking the press, punishing free speech, and undermining independent institutions like universities and research centers—hallmarks of democratic societies. Drawing parallels to autocratic regimes in Russia, Turkey, and Hungary, the signatories argue that America’s democratic institutions are being dismantled in favor of authoritarian control. They call for a broad, nonpartisan coalition—including educators, students, unions, and community leaders—to resist this slide into autocracy and defend constitutional values, urging Americans to stand up before democracy is lost. Read the Pledge to Our Democracy: https://bit.ly/437C0BI Latest on Litigations Against Trump's Executive Actions As of May 1, 2025, the number of lawsuits against President Donald Trump's executive actions reported by the Just Security Litigation Tracker has grown to 222 (7 closed cases). 1. Mass Termination of F-1 Foreign Student Visa Records One of the most significant waves of legal action involves the mass termination of F-1 foreign student visa records. The Tracker consolidates as one case Jane Doe 1 v. Bondi (1:25-cv-01998) all the lawsuits involving the removal of F-1 foreign student visa registration, representing over 100 lawsuits filed (and 50 restraining orders) against the administration’s actions. They include Liu v. Noem (1:25-cv-00133), Deore v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2:25-cv-11038), and Chen v. Noem (3:25-cv-03292) although each case may vary in facts and legal arguments. According to a policy brief by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and as reported by AsAmNews on April 22, Indian and Chinese nationals account for the majority of revoked student visas -- 50% and 14% respectively -- followed by South Korea, Nepal and Bangladesh. Amy Grenier, AILA’s Associate Director of Government Relations, advises students to document any notices received from the government or their universities. Tejas Shah, president of the South Asian Bar Association’s charitable arm, expressed concern over the lack of clarity and due process: “Students have not been given an opportunity to properly challenge the grounds for the revocations,” he said. While some students have opted to self-deport, Shah urges caution and emphasizes the importance of legal counsel and consular support before making such decisions. 2. District Court Rules Invocation Of Alien Enemies Act Was Unlawful According to AP News, Wall Street Journal, and multiple media reports, on May 1, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. of the Southern Disatrict of Texas ruled in the case of J.A.V. v. Trump (1:25-cv-00072) that the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) cannot be used against people who, the Trump administration claims, are gang members invading the United States. He is the first judge to bar the Trump administration from deporting any Venezuelans from South Texas under the 18th-century wartime law. “The Court concludes that the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and, as a result, is unlawful,” wrote Judge Rodriguez, who was nominated by Trump in 2018. His ruling is significant because it is the first formal permanent injunction against the Trump administration using the AEA and contends the president is misusing the law. “Congress never meant for this law to be used in this manner,” said Lee Gelernt, the ACLU lawyer who argued the case, in response to the ruling. The Alien Enemies Act has only been used three times before in U.S. history, most recently during World War II, when it was cited to intern Japanese Americans. 3. 220+ Lawsuits for First 100 Days in Office According to ABC News, in the first 100 days of Donald Trump’s second term, his administration has faced an unprecedented wave of legal challenges—more than 220 lawsuits—averaging over two per day. Approximately 60 of those cases have focused on the president's immigration policy, These lawsuits target executive orders, sweeping immigration changes, mass firings, and attacks on higher education and civil liberties. Judges across the country have blocked key parts of his agenda, including attempts to end birthright citizenship, punish sanctuary cities, and eliminate diversity initiatives. While the administration has won some temporary reprieves, courts have harshly criticized its disregard for due process and constitutional norms. In the first hundred days since Trump took office, lawyers challenging his actions in court alleged that his administration violated court orders at least six times. The administration has rebutted orders to bring Abrego Garcia back to the United States despite the Supreme Court ordering them to facilitate his release. Federal judges have accused the Trump administration of acting in "bad faith," willfully ignoring court orders, and launching what one judge called a “shock-and-awe” campaign against legal guardrails. High-profile rulings have exposed how ICE used the Alien Enemies Act to deport individuals without proper review and how student visas were revoked based on speech or minor offenses. Four law firms have sued the Trump administration after they were targeted for their past work, with each firm arguing the Trump administration unlawfully retaliated against them and violated their First Amendment rights. Judges have temporarily blocked the Trump administration from targeting Susman Godfrey LLP, Jenner & Block LLP, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, and Perkins Coie LLP. "The framers of our Constitution would see this as a shocking abuse of power," U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan said regarding the order targeting Susman Godfrey LLP. According to the New York Times Tracker, as of May 1, at least 132 of the court rulings have at least temporarily paused some of the Trump administration’s initiatives. May is Asian Pacific American Heritage Month Asian Pacific American Heritage Month originated in June 1977 when Representatives Frank Horton (New York) and Norman Y. Mineta (California) called for the establishment of Asian/Pacific Heritage Week. Hawaii senators Daniel Inouye and Spark Matsunaga introduced a similar bill in the Senate. Both bills passed, and in 1978 President Jimmy Carter signed the resolution. In 1990, President George H. W. Bush expanded the celebration from a week to a month. The monthlong celebration honors the contributions and history of Asian American Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander (AANHPI) communities in the United States. The activities have grown beyond cultural festivities to include serious themes addressing community grief and social justice, especially in response to recent anti-Asian hate incidents. Events are now held in various public spaces across the U.S., highlighting the diversity within AANHPI communities. Despite recent federal rollbacks on diversity initiatives, public interest and participation in AANHPI Heritage Month continue to expand, reflecting broader engagement in civic life and a reclaiming of space for underrepresented voices. Over 30 members of Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC) members & House Democratic leaders celebrate AANHPI Heritage Month with this statement: https://bit.ly/3GwLRbL. The website asianpacificheritage.gov is the official U.S. government portal for AANHPI Heritage Month. It is a collaborative project curated by various federal cultural institutions including the Library of Congress, National Archives, National Endowment for the Humanities, National Gallery of Art, National Park Service, Smithsonian Institution, and United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. The website covers: • History of AANHPI Heritage Month: Its origins, significance, and how it came to be recognized in May. • Feature Exhibits and Collections: Digital exhibits, archival materials, and special collections that highlight AANHPI contributions to American history and culture. • Events and Programs: A calendar of public lectures, virtual tours, and educational programs hosted by federal agencies and museums. • Resources for Educators: Lesson plans, teaching materials, and historical documents that support classroom learning. • Spotlights on Notable Figures: Biographies and achievements of prominent AANHPI individuals across diverse fields such as arts, science, politics, and activism. Some of the state and local activities for the Heritage Month: • Asia Society: https://bit.ly/3EyjdGB • Asia Society Texas: https://bit.ly/3YXa40S • Cincinnati, Ohio: https://bit.ly/3S4kiJn • Fairfax County, Virginia: https://bit.ly/42SYLIn • Houston: https://bit.ly/4lUVQYn • Kansas City: https://bit.ly/44dxgM1 • Lincoln, Nebraska: https://bit.ly/4iFQpd6 • Los Angeles: https://bit.ly/3EH5gpN • Middle Tennessee: https://bit.ly/4jB5oq5 • Montgomery County, Maryland: https://bit.ly/4jQWkNs • New York: https://bit.ly/3YVuLKI • Orlando, Florida: https://bit.ly/42PWZry • San Francisco: https://bit.ly/42CO5ib • Seattle: https://bit.ly/3GuFTrB • Unexpected: https://bit.ly/42RaEhV News and Activities for the Communities 1. APA Justice Community Calendar Upcoming Events: 2025/05/04 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting 2025/05/05 APA Justice Monthly Meeting 2025/05/05 Silk Road Connection: Oklahoma and Gansu Celebrate 40 Years of Friendship through Culture, Music, and Education 2025/05/06 Asian American Careers - How to Build Your Personal Network, including Through Strategic Allies 2025/05/12-14 APAICS Annual Summit and Gala 2025/05/18 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting 2025/06/01 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting 2025/06/02 APA Justice Monthly Meeting 2025/06/15-18 2025 Applied Statistics Symposium Visit https://bit.ly/3XD61qV for event details. 2. The Silk Road Connection On May 5, 2025, the University of Central Oklahoma (UCO) will host a "Silk Road Connection" performance to celebrate 40 years of sister-state friendship between Oklahoma and the Gansu province of China. The in-person event is free and open to the public. It will be held at Constitution Hall in the George Nigh Center, University of Central Oklahoma, 100 N. University Drive, Edmond, Oklahoma. Reception starts at 6 pm. Performance starts at 7 pm. The event will feature traditional Chinese music and dance, hors d'oeuvres, photo opportunities with Chinese performers in traditional costumes and a performance from Oklahoma’s own Kyle Dillingham & Horseshoe Road. A delegation from Gansu will bring both government officials and a large group of professional dancers and musicians. Former UCO President and Oklahoma Governor George Nigh will also be in attendance. For more information and tickets to to event, visit: https://bit.ly/44Q5S6Z # # # APA Justice Task Force is a non-partisan platform to build a sustainable ecosystem that addresses racial profiling concerns and to facilitate, inform, and advocate on selected issues related to justice and fairness for the Asian Pacific American community. For more information, please refer to the new APA Justice website under development at www.apajusticetaskforce.org. We value your feedback. Please send your comments to contact@apajustice.org. Back View PDF May 2, 2025 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

#331 5/5 Meeting; Student Visas Reversal; Higher Ed United; Litigations; Heritage Month; + May 2, 2025 Read #330 Fears of the Revival of the China Initiative April 30, 2025 Read #329 5/5 Meeting; William Tong; Hanfan Lin; China Initiative; Harvard Push Back; Uprising + April 24, 2025 Read #328 5/5 Meeting; Census Bureau; Birthright Citizenship; Visas Revoked; 4/17; Litigations + April 21, 2025 Read #327 C100 Conference; California Events; Xiaofeng Wang; AAJC; Harvard Says No; Litigations+ April 17, 2025 Read #326 Xiaofeng Wang; Dean Chemerinsky; F1 Students; TX HB17; NAPABA/AALDEF; Litigations; + April 13, 2025 Read #325 Rep. Mark Takano; Birthright Citizenship; "Hands Off!"; Xiaofeng Wang; Litigations; + April 9, 2025 Read #324 4/7 Meeting; Rallies and Hearing in TX; US Data Integrity; Rule of Law; Litigations;+ April 3, 2025 Read #323 4/7 Meeting; Texas Rallies; US Science; Profiling Scholars/Students; Litigations; More March 31, 2025 Read #322 4/7 Monthly Meeting; Texas Rallies; Litigations; NAPABA/ABA statements; AAPI History + March 28, 2025 Read #321 4/7 Meeting; SwAA/AASF Updates; Bill to Ban Chinese Students; Nature Op-Ed; Lawsuits+ March 24, 2025 Read #320 ACF, CALDA and AAJC Reports; Trump Invokes 1798 Law; Court Rulings Against Trump; More March 20, 2025 Read < < 1 1 1 Newsletters APA Justice began publishing a free periodic newsletter about 4-7 times a month in July 2020. You can subscribe here . Visit the Virtual Library to search the entire collection. Filter by year

March 2025 Meeting Summary Mar 3, 2025 Read February 2025 Monthly Meeting Summary Feb 3, 2025 Read January 2025 Meeting Summary Jan 6, 2025 Read December 2024 Meeting Summary Dec 2, 2024 Read November 2024 Meeting Summary Nov 18, 2024 Read October 2024 Meeting Summary Oct 7, 2024 Read September 2024 Meeting Summary Sep 9, 2024 Read August 2024 Meeting Summary Aug 5, 2024 Read July 2024 Meeting Summary Jul 1, 2024 Read June 2024 Meeting Summary Jun 3, 2024 Read May 2024 Meeting Summary May 6, 2024 Read April 2024 Meeting Summary Apr 8, 2024 Read Monthly Meeting Summaries APA Justice conducts monthly meetings and publishes the meeting summary on this website. Participation is by invitation only. Due to limited capacity, invited participants are typically active and recognized organizations and concerned individuals. Please send an email to contact@apajustice.org if you have interest. < < 1 1 1

Alien Land Bills WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME Prev Next Overview Alien land laws were a series of laws enacted in the United States, primarily in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with the intent of restricting land ownership and leasing rights for non-citizens, particularly targeting Asian immigrants who were ineligible for citizenship, such as Chinese immigrants due to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The Alien Land Laws varied from state to state but generally prohibited non-citizens, or aliens, from owning or leasing land directly in their own names. In some cases, they also restricted the ability of non-citizen corporations in which aliens were major shareholders from owning land. These laws were often discriminatory and aimed to discourage Asian immigrants from establishing permanent roots and economic stability in the United States. The Alien Land Laws were part of a broader context of anti-immigrant sentiment and racism prevalent during that time period. They contributed to the marginalization and economic disadvantage faced by Asian immigrants, particularly those of Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino descent, who were significant contributors to the agricultural industry in states like California and Hawaii. Alien land laws were justified by politicians of the time as "national security" measures, yet they fueled economic hardship, violence, and discrimination against Asian immigrants. Over the decades, courts struck down or repealed most of these laws as unconstitutional, recognizing the equal protection rights of immigrant communities. However, similar patterns and justifications re-emerged with recent legislation, like Florida’s state law known as SB 264, echoing these historical discriminatory practices under new pretexts. References and Links Equal Justice Initiative: California Law Prohibits Asian Immigrants from Owning Land Immigration History: Alien Land Laws in California (1913 & 1920) Smithsonian Institution: A More Perfect Union - Japanese Americans and the U.S. Constitution Wikipedia: Alien Land Laws 2023/02/18 Racism.org: The End of California's Anti-Asian Alien Land Law: A Case Study in Reparations and Transitional Justice History of Alien Land Laws Add paragraph text. Click “Edit Text” to customize this theme across your site. You can update and reuse text themes. Timeline Contents Go Go Select Title

Newsletter - #330 Fears of the Revival of the China Initiative #330 Fears of the Revival of the China Initiative In This Issue #330 · Indiana University Professor Raided by the FBI, Dismissed without Explanation · New College of Florida Professor Terminated under Controversial State Law · “China Initiative” Webinar Hosted at Michigan State University · Fighting Racial Profiling and the Criminalization of Academia in North America The recent FBI raids on Indiana University professor Xiaofeng Wang , along with the dismissal of another Chinese American professor, Kevin Wang , by the New College of Florida, have stirred deep anxiety among Chinese American scientists and researchers. In this special issue, we take a closer look at the possible revival of the China Initiative - a controversial program launched during the first Trump administration to combat economic espionage but widely criticized for disproportionately targeting Chinese American scientists. The renewed effort has been dubbed by some as “China Initiative 2.0.” APA Justice will continue to monitor these developments and provide updates through our newsletters , social media and monthly meetings . The goal of this issue is to raise awareness and draw attention to this important topic. We invite you to stay engaged and follow our ongoing coverage . Indiana University Professor Raided by the FBI, Dismissed without Explanation On March 28, 2025, based on multiple media reports, the FBI carried out court-authorized searches at two residences belonging to Professor Xiaofeng Wang and his wife, Nianli Ma , located in Bloomington and Carmel, Indiana. While the exact details of the investigation remain unclear, Wang had reportedly come under scrutiny for allegedly failing to disclose a 2017–2018 grant in China that listed him as a researcher. Professor Wang, a Chinese American computer scientist, has been a respected faculty member at Indiana University’s Luddy School of Informatics, Computing, and Engineering since 2004. A graduate of two Chinese universities in the 1990s, Wang worked as a software engineer and IT specialist before earning his doctorate from Carnegie Mellon University. Over the years, he built a strong reputation as one of the nation’s leading experts in systems security and privacy, overseeing nearly $23 million in grant funding by 2022.Following the FBI raids, Wang’s profile was abruptly removed from Indiana University’s website. The university terminated both Wang and his wife, Ma — who worked as a systems analyst at the university library — four days apart. The university has yet to publicly explain the reasons for their dismissal.Attorney James Covert , representing the couple, confirmed that neither Wang nor Ma has been arrested or charged. “Professor Wang and Ms. Ma are grateful for the support of colleagues at Indiana University and in the academic community,” Covert said in a statement. “They look forward to clearing their names and resuming their careers once the investigation concludes.” Ma spoke about her family situation at the State of Play Town Hall hosted by the Asian American Scholar Forum on April 14. · APA Justice Impacted Person page: Xiaofeng Wang · Professor Abruptly Fired Amid FBI Raid · Fired prof accused of research misconduct, FBI involvement unclear · Wife, son of cybersecurity professor Xiaofeng Wang make first comments since FBI raid · A Cybersecurity Professor Disappeared Amid an FBI Search. His Family Is ‘Determined to Fight’ New College of Florida Professor Terminated under Controversial State Law Meanwhile, in Florida, Professor Kevin Wang, a Chinese national holding valid U.S. work authorization, was abruptly dismissed from his position at the New College of Florida in March. His termination came under Florida’s Senate Bill 846 (SB 846) — a 2023 state law that bars public universities and colleges from employing individuals from so-called “countries of concern,” including China. Wang’s firing has become a flashpoint in a broader legal and civil rights battle challenging Florida’s crackdown on hiring foreign nationals in public higher education. The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida criticized the law, calling it unconstitutional and discriminatory. “The Florida law cited in the firing of this Chinese professor codifies anti-Asian discrimination,” the group wrote in a recent Facebook post. “It’s why we’re fighting it in court.”On March 27, just two weeks after Wang’s dismissal, a federal judge in Miami issued a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the law’s hiring restrictions, specifically as they apply to international students. Florida has since appealed the ruling and filed a motion seeking to pause the injunction while the case proceeds. Although the ruling addressed students, civil rights advocates believe it could lay the groundwork for broader challenges on behalf of faculty members.The renewed scrutiny of Chinese academics and scientists has stirred memories of the now-defunct China Initiative, which was criticized for disproportionately targeting Chinese and Asian American researchers, often without clear evidence of wrongdoing. · APA Justice Impacted Person page: Kevin Wang · New College fires Chinese professor under controversial Florida ‘countries of concern’ law · Firing of Chinese asylum seeker under SB 846 raises alarm in Florida and beyond · Report: New College of Florida Fires Chinese Adjunct, Citing Regulations · Asian American Scholar Forum Alarmed by Termination of New College of Florida Professor Under Florida’s SB 846 “China Initiative” Webinar Hosted at Michigan State University In a webinar on China Initiative hosted by Michigan State University's Asian Pacific American Studies Program on March 12, Dr. Jeremy Wu , Founder of APA Justice , was a panelist along with Dr. Lok Siu of UC Berkeley. The event was moderated by Dr. Kent Weber of Michigan State University. Dr. Wu provided an in-depth overview of the initiative’s history and impact. Launched in November 2018, the China Initiative aimed to address economic espionage but quickly shifted focus to Asian American academics, particularly those of Chinese descent. Over its 1,210-day duration, it led to 77 known cases and affected 162 individuals. More than two dozen scientists faced prosecution, none for espionage or trade secret theft. The initiative harmed not just individuals but also academic freedom, open science, and U.S. leadership in research.Even before the DOJ’s involvement, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) had already initiated investigations in 2018, sending 10,000 letters to research institutions about alleged foreign ties. In response, advocacy groups and professional networks mobilized, providing support and pushing for policy change. Their efforts ultimately led to the initiative’s termination in February 2022.However, challenges remain. As of now, the U.S. Congress has not officially revived the “China Initiative” in name, but there are signs of similar efforts resurfacing under different guises. Within the current political climate, these types of laws and investigations will likely expand, even if the “China Initiative” name is not used. · China Initiative - Timeline of Major Events · Impacted Persons List · Attempts to Revive China Initiative Fighting Racial Profiling and the Criminalization of Academia in North America On March 21, 2025, the Chinese Canadian Faculty Project at Simon Fraser University, Canada, invited Dr. Anming Hu for an event named Fighting Racial Profiling and the Criminalization of Academia in North America, both in-person and online. The event was moderated by Dr. Xinying Hu of Simon Fraser University. Dr. Jane Wang of University of British Columbia, and Dr. Jie Yang of Simon Fraser University participated as discussants.This event was one of the Chinese Canadian Faculty Project’s ongoing series of Academic Freedom, Anti-racial profiling and Labour Rights. The series is sponsored by the Labour Studies Program and the Simon Fraser University Morgan Centre for Labour Research , Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) and Canada-China Focus (CCF). The purpose of the Chinese Canadian Faculty Project is to engage and support researchers, scholars, as well as graduate students of Chinese descent and other minority groups to fight against racial profiling and defend academic freedom in the increasingly restrictive national security measures adopted by the Canadian government through its Named Research Organizations in Sensitive Technology Research Areas, and legalized control of academic freedom under the newly passed Bill C-70, the Countering Foreign Interference Act. Through organizing open conversations, the Chinese Canadian Faculty Project hopes to foster an inclusive and open academic environment.At the event, Dr. Hu shared his powerful story as the first academic wrongfully charged and went on trial under the China Initiative. He spoke about what he experienced, the impacts on his academic career, his life and his family. He spoke out against racial profiling, and warned about the dangers of overreach in national security measures targeting academia. Immediate impact of the event: As a Chinese Canadian, Dr. Anming Hu’s story was known to the Chinese Canadian academic community. The event attracted attention nationwide in Canada. Scholars in sensitive technology areas have a wide fear of racial profiling and being wrongfully treated by their own government. Therefore, university professors, scholars and students participated widely. There were more than seventy attendees across North America. The participants addressed their concerns during the panel discussion. They consulted Dr. Hu regarding legal concerns and sought advice on how to protect themselves. In response, Dr. Hu shared insights from his own experience. Political impact: Beyond attracting academia attention, the event has also drawn interest from politicians. Senator Yuen Pau Woo participated in person. He was concerned about whether the Canadian government provided adequate support to Dr. Hu when he encountered injustice. He asked whether the Canadian government took any action to help Dr. Hu during his investigation and trial, and if any Canadian diplomats, government agencies or parliamentarians stood up to support him. In addition, Senator Yuen Pau Woo also asked if the Canadian government would provide similar advice and support when a Canadian citizen encountered similar legal problems in China. Dr. Hu responded how the Canadian government instructed him to “follow the U.S. law” and provided no help. In comparison, Dr. Hu addressed how U.S. congressional members provided assistance in his case. He hopes that the Canadian government will be more proactive in protecting its citizens in the future, especially when handling similar legal issues, and can act more forcefully and effectively. Social impact: A local Vancouver social activist Ally Wang participated in the event in person. The Stop Anti-Asian Hate Crimes Advocacy Group , which she co-founded, helped promote the event. She writes articles for Chinese language media. She has translated Dr. Anming Hu’s story into Chinese and will publish in a Chinese language magazine.In conclusion, the event raised attention to racial profiling against Chinese professors in the academy in both Canada and America. It called wide attention to academic independence and impartiality, firmly oppose political interference, and encourage everyone to actively participate in discussions among universities, policymakers and the public to jointly promote the construction of an inclusive and fair higher education environment. # # # APA Justice Task Force is a non-partisan platform to build a sustainable ecosystem that addresses racial profiling concerns and to facilitate, inform, and advocate on selected issues related to justice and fairness for the Asian Pacific American community. For more information, please refer to the new APA Justice website under development at www.apajusticetaskforce.org . We value your feedback. Please send your comments to contact@apajustice.org . Back View PDF April 30, 2025 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Newsletter - #329 5/5 Meeting; William Tong; Hanfan Lin; China Initiative; Harvard Push Back; Uprising + #329 5/5 Meeting; William Tong; Hanfan Lin; China Initiative; Harvard Push Back; Uprising + In This Issue #329 · 2025/05/05 APA Justice Monthly Meeting · William Tong: Connecticut Attorney General · Haifan Lin: President of Federation of Asian Professor Associations · Long Shadow of the "China Initiative" · University Leaders Stand Up to Trump Administration Threats · NYT Opinion : "America Needs an Uprising That Is Not Normal" · News and Activities for the Communities 2025/05/05 APA Justice Monthly Meeting The next APA Justice monthly meeting will be held via Zoom on Monday, May 5, 2025, starting at 1:55 pm ET. In addition to updates by Judith Teruya , Executive Director, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC), Joanna YangQing Derman , Program Director, Advancing Justice | AAJC, and Gisela Perez Kusakawa , Executive Director, Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF), invited speakers are: · William Tong 湯偉麟 , Attorney General, State of Connecticut · Robert L. Santos , Former Director, U.S. Census Bureau; Former President, American Statistical Association · Haifan Lin 林海帆 , President, Federation of Asian Professor Associations (FAPA); Professor, Yale University · Gee-Kung Chang 張繼昆 , Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology The virtual monthly meeting is by invitation only. It is closed to the press. If you wish to join, either one time or for future meetings, please contact one of the co-organizers of APA Justice - Steven Pei 白先慎 , Vincent Wang 王文奎 , and Jeremy Wu 胡善庆 - or send a message to contact@apajustice.org . William Tong: Connecticut Attorney General William Tong 湯偉麟 is the 25th Attorney General (AG) to serve Connecticut since the office was established by the state constitution in 1897. He first took office in 2019 and is currently serving his second term. Born in Hartford, he is the first Asian American elected to any state office in Connecticut history, and the first Chinese American to be elected Attorney General nationwide. AG Tong was elected to serve as the President-elect of the National Association of Attorneys General. The vote was unanimous. His term begins in 2026.AG Tong has accepted our invitation to speak at the APA Justice monthly meeting on May 5, 2025.Since taking office in 2019, he has been a leading voice in defending civil rights and challenging federal overreach. He and fellow state attorneys general have filed at least eight lawsuits against the Trump administration, including efforts to oppose attempts to end birthright citizenship, prevent the freezing of federal funds critical to states, and overturn the planned $11 billion cut in the federal public health grants. AG Tong's advocacy underscores his commitment to upholding constitutional protections and ensuring equitable treatment for all communities. · 2025/04/02 CTpost: Connecticut sues Trump administration, Kennedy over health cuts, $120 million to state at risk · 2025/03/06 Attorney General Tong Secures Court Order Blocking Trump Administration from Freezing Federal Funds · 2024/12/29 NBC News: 'The first to sue': Opposing Trump's desire to end birthright citizenship is personal for this attorney general Haifan Lin: President of Federation of Asian Professor Associations Dr. Haifan Lin 林海帆 , President of the Federation of Asian Professor Associations (FAPA), is an invited speaker at the APA Justice monthly meeting on May 5, 2025.FAPA is a national coalition dedicated to uniting Asian and Asian American faculty across U.S. institutions. Established in 2024, FAPA aims to foster collaboration, amplify advocacy, and promote shared initiatives among Asian faculty organizations nationwide. Its mission encompasses advancing academic freedom, equity, and representation, particularly in response to challenges such as racial profiling and underrepresentation in leadership roles.Dr. Lin is the Eugene Higgins Professor of Cell Biology at Yale University and the founding director of the Yale Stem Cell Center. Renowned for his pioneering work in stem cell biology, Dr. Lin is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. National Academy of Medicine, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a foreign member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. On April 12, 2025, FAPA issued a public statement on the case of Indiana University Professor Xiaofeng Wang 王晓峰 and sent an open letter to Dr. Pamela Whitten , President of Indiana University, to condemn the abrupt dismissal of Dr. Wang, citing a lack of due process and growing racial profiling of Chinese American scientists. FAPA urges the university to reverse the decision, warning that such actions undermine academic freedom and set a dangerous precedent. Long Shadow of the "China Initiative" On April 25, 2025, the Committee of 100 annual conference will kick off with a session on " The Evolving National Security Landscape and Its Impact on Civil Rights ." This panel will examine what has replaced the China Initiative, who is being targeted now, and what comes next. Panelists will explore the broader implications of national security-driven discrimination, including the erosion of due process rights, racial profiling in espionage cases, and restrictions on cross-border collaboration. They will also discuss strategies for resisting policies that reinforce systemic inequality and advocate for civil liberties in an era of rising geopolitical tensions. Speakers for the panel are: · Gang Chen 陈刚 , Carl Richard Soderberg Professor of Power Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) · Seth DuCharme , Chair, National Government Enforcement & Investigations Practice, Bracewell LLP; Former United States Attorney · Gary Locke 骆家辉 , Former U.S. Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China · Brian Sun 孙自华 , Partner, Norton Rose Fulbright US 1. The Case of Dr. Chee-Kung Wang Dr. Gee-Kung Chang 張繼昆 , currently a retired professor at Georgia Institute of Technology, was indicted in 2021 for 10 counts of visa and wire fraud. Prosecutors claimed he facilitated a scheme that brought Chinese nationals to the U. S. on J-1 visiting scholar visa to work at a private telecommunications firm instead of at the University. In April 2025, all charges were dismissed at the pretrial stage due to lack of evidence and not meeting fundamental principles of law. His case is widely seen as another example of racial profiling and prosecutorial overreach under now-defunct "China Initiative." He was represented by attorneys Robert Fisher and Brian Kelly , who also defended MIT Professor Gang Chen in a separate case under "China Initiative." Dr. Gee-Kung Chang and Mr. Robert Fisher will speak at the APA Justice monthly meeting on May 5, 2025. 2. China Initiative 2.0? The Case of Dr. Xiaofeng Wang 王晓峰 On March 28, 2025, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security executed search warrants at Indiana University (IU) Professor Xiaofeng Wang 's 王晓峰 residences in Bloomington and Carmel, Indiana. Simultaneously, IU terminated Professor Wang's employment via email without any formal reason. His wife, Nianli Ma , also affiliated with IU, was dismissed four days earlier without explanation. At the April 14, 2025 State of Play Town Hall, Nianli Ma shared her family's profound sense of betrayal and emotional distress over IU's unexplained dismissals, vowing to fight for justice and support the broader research community.On April 1, 2025, Stanford University legal scholar Riana Pfefferkorn filed a motion (1:25-mc-00022) to unseal the warrants, emphasizing the public's right to transparency. The U.S. Attorney's Office has argued to keep them sealed.Professor Wang's termination reportedly involved an undisclosed research grant from China in 2017-2018. Joining the protest on April 17, 2025, Day of Action for Higher Ed, IU computer science chair Yuzhen Ye said Professor Wang was not even aware of the grant when university officials asked him about it. “So apparently a researcher in China applied for this grant without his knowledge," she said "So (Wang) explained and also he provided a supporting documentation to IU. I truly believe this really could have unfolded in a very different way if IU administration had chosen to trust its own faculty or give them a fair chance to respond,” Professor Ye said. Read the continuing development of Professor Wang's case: https://bit.ly/42tbPVR 3. The Unsolved Suicide of Dr. Nongjian Tao According to an exclusive report by the South China Morning Post on April 14, 2025, Nongjian Tao 陶农建 , a renowned Chinese American scientist and pioneer in nanotechnology, was found dead in March 2020 outside a parking garage at Arizona State University (ASU), where he led the Center for Bioelectronics and Biosensors. A police report later concluded that Tao died by suicide amid significant "work-related stress." His sudden death at age 57 shocked colleagues, as he had been actively engaged in professional activities shortly before his passing. Tao was celebrated for his invention of the scanning tunneling microscopy break junction technique, which advanced the study of single molecules and contributed to the field of nanoscience. He also founded two biotech startups and secured over $10 million in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. Stuart Lindsay , a Regents Professor at ASU and Professor Tao’s PhD adviser in the 1980s, called him “the brightest and hardest working student” he had ever had.In 2021, the American Chemical Society published the first-ever special issue of ACS Sensors dedicated to the memory of Professor Tao, recognizing him as "a person that made an incredible impact on our lives and those of many others." He was named an honorary fellow by the Chinese Chemical Society in 2012. In April 2020, The obituary in Nature Nanotechnology honors Professor Tao (1963–2020) as a pioneering nanoscientist. Professor Tao's death occurred during the era of the "China Initiative," which aimed to counter alleged economic espionage but shifted to racial profiling against Chinese researchers. Five years later, questions about Professor Tao’s death remain – including whether some of that stress was the result of possible inquiries by NIH.The cause of Professor Tao’s death may never be known. University Leaders Stand Up to Trump Administration Threats According to Harvard Crimson on April 22, 2025, Harvard University President Alan Garber joined over 180 university leaders (which has since grown to more than 220) in signing a public statement denouncing government overreach and political interference in higher education. Issued by the American Association of Colleges and Universities , the statement calls for constructive engagement with the White House while opposing undue intrusion on campuses. It follows Harvard’s lawsuit challenging a $2.2 billion funding cut and marks the first time the university has directly co-led opposition to the Trump administration. The statement also criticized threats of deportation, emphasizing the importance of academic freedom and open inquiry.On April 21, 2025, Harvard filed a lawsuit to halt a federal freeze on more than $2.2 billion in grants: President and Fellows of Harvard College v. US Department of Health and Human Services (1:25-cv-11048) On April 14, 2025, Harvard publicly rejected a series of sweeping demands from the Trump administration, which included overhauling its admissions, hiring, and diversity programs, and submitting to federal oversight. “The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights,” the Harvard President Garber wrote. On April 18, 2025, the New York Times reported that some administration officials claimed the initial letter on April 11 was sent in error. According to the Washington Post on April 19, 2025, Harvard pushed back on the assertion that the letter was sent in error, pointing out that the Trump administration had “doubled down” on its threats. After Harvard refused to comply with the letter’s demands, the Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in federal funding to the university without proof of violatons and threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status. NYT Opinion: "America Needs an Uprising That Is Not Normal" In an essay published by the New York Times on April 17, 2025, Columnist David Brooks opined that " What's Happening Is Not Normal. America Needs an Uprising That Is Not Normal. " According to the opinion, Trumpism is not normal politics — it is a systematic, multifront assault on the foundational institutions of modern civilization. As the opinion explains, "Trumpism is about ego, appetite and acquisitiveness," and it actively seeks to dismantle the safeguards that make society humane and just — from universities and law firms to NATO and the rule of law. The usual compartmentalized responses have failed; treating these attacks as separate issues is a "disastrous strategy" that allows Trumpism to divide and conquer. This moment demands recognition that what’s at stake is not a partisan struggle, but “an assault on the fundamental institutions of our civic life.”What is urgently needed is not passive defense, but an “abnormal uprising” — a coordinated, national civic movement that unites all sectors of society: law, academia, science, media, business, and civil service. Drawing from historic examples in Why Civil Resistance Works , such movements start small but grow through strategic nonviolence — lawsuits, boycotts, mass rallies — eventually shifting the momentum and narrative. As the opinion argues, “Trump is about power. The only way he’s going to be stopped is if he is confronted by some movement that possesses rival power.” This is a call not just to resist, but to reform, heal, and rebuild. “We have nothing to lose but our chains,” the opinion concludes.Read the New York Times opinion by David Brooks: https://bit.ly/4ivpDUL News and Activities for the Communities 1. APA Justice Community Calendar 2025/04/24-26 Committee of 100 Annual Conference and Gala2025/04/24 CHINA Town Hall: The First 100 Days: President Trump's China Policy2025/04/24 Federal Employees: Know your Legal Rights2025/04/24 Stop AAPI Hate Community Town Hall - Trump’s Travel Ban: How to Prepare and Push Back2025/04/28 California AANHPI Advocacy Day2025/04/30 Beyond the China Initiative: Civil Rights, National Security, and the Future of AAPI Communities2025/05/04 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2025/05/05 APA Justice Monthly Meeting2025/05/06 Asian American Careers - How to Build Your Personal Network, including Through Strategic Allies2025/05/12-14 APAICS Annual Summit and GalaVisit https://bit.ly/3XD61qV for event details. # # # APA Justice Task Force is a non-partisan platform to build a sustainable ecosystem that addresses racial profiling concerns and to facilitate, inform, and advocate on selected issues related to justice and fairness for the Asian Pacific American community. For more information, please refer to the new APA Justice website under development at www.apajusticetaskforce.org . We value your feedback. Please send your comments to contact@apajustice.org . Back View PDF April 24, 2025 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter